Ron Gray brings us to the point in this story when – having been through 3 levels of court with a seemingly inexplicable outcome – Kari Simpson is approached by an unidentified man who exposes the lies and corruption behind it all. Tune in and learn how this came about, and how "Justice" M. Marvyn Koenigsberg's stonewalling continued.
Jerry Flynn is a retired officer of the Royal Canadian Navy, but he continues to serve and protect his fellow Canadians by lecturing about the very serious dangers of Smart Meter technology. Flynn should know; he was an expert for Canada in wireless technology as a weapon for 22 years. The utility and appliance companies who are involved know the dangers, too, as well as the Canadian government, but it seems that profit is more important to them than the health and lives of millions of Canadians.
Statement by Vancouver Archbishop J. Michael Miller on the 25th anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler
VANCOUVER (Jan. 28, 2013) — Twenty-five years ago, a legal decision was unleashed on Canada that has had an impact we can scarcely measure.
While some may celebrate, the sad truth is that the Supreme Court of Canada Morgentaler decision has cast a pall over Canada and led to the death of more than a million lives in the womb.
As followers of Christ, we are concerned about anything affecting human life and dignity. That is why we are involved in efforts to stem the tide of violence and war wherever they occur.
We work to alleviate poverty in all its forms in the Downtown Eastside.
We strive to implement more humane ways to handle the incarcerated, to promote fair treatment of immigrants and migrant workers, and to advance access to education.
We struggle to eliminate every form of unjust discrimination and to assure that people have the opportunity to work and that working conditions correspond to their dignity;
We reject unethical practices such as assisted suicide and euthanasia.
And we work to restore in law the right to life of the unborn threatened by abortion.
If we cannot secure the most fundamental right to life, then there is no basis for any other right at all. About this there is no doubt: from its conception, the child has the right to life.
Direct abortion and intentional euthanasia are grave contradictions of the dignity of human life and the respect due to God, our Creator. Because the embryo should be treated as a person from conception, the pre-born child must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
As Pope Benedict said, “When a society moves toward the denial or the suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”
In this Year of Faith, when we are invited to evangelize and deepen our relationship with Christ and His Church, I note the growing sense of hope among those working to establish a culture of life. In this we are united in a common cause.
There appears to be more enthusiasm than ever in advancing the cause of life, and all of us need to ask the Lord for increased courage to speak the truth about the inherent dignity and sacredness of human life ever more clearly, but never with hatred or disrespect for persons.
To be pro-life, to defend the right to life, means to stand up for the truth, especially the truth about the God-given dignity and worth of every human being. We must be firmly convinced that this is the truth that sets people free (cf. Jn 8:32) and to proclaim it is an act of charity.
_________________________________
Paul Schratz
Communications Director
Archdiocese of Vancouver www.rcav.org
John Paul II Pastoral Centre
150 Robson St., Vancouver BC V6B 2A7
T: 604-683-0281, ext. 262 F: 604-683-8117 E: communications@rcav.org
This week, Ron Gray recounts the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada's defamatory, change-the-law-in-mid-decision conclusion. Kari Simpson headed back to the original trial judge in this farce of justice, and that judge – Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg – was sticking to her guns (and her lies) in her ongoing attempt to circumvent justice.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA
Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
January 23, 2013
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson
RCMP National Headquarters
Headquarters Building
73 Leikin Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
Dear Commissioner Paulson,
Recent public reports have revealed the possibility of numerous breaches of the Criminal Code – to be specific, homicides – in Canada which need to be investigated.
These killings appear to have started out as attempted abortions, but the babies were born alive. At the blog, Run With Life, you will learn: “From 2000 to 2009 in Canada, there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died after it was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn'” (http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/10/late-term-abortions-statistics-born.html).
The data used to discover the existence of these possible murders is from Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 102-0536, “Deaths by Cause, Chapter XVI, Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period” (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1020536&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=).
According to the Criminal Code, a child is considered to be a human being and a person after proceeding fully from the mother’s womb, therefore, based on Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code, there should be 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths.
As you would know, Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code reads, “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference is guilty of homicide.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has also reported 119 live birth abortions for the year 2010/2011 (http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/12/update-live-birth-abortions-on-rise-in.html), which is an extremely troubling increase from previous years.
This increase indicates that the killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if these apparent crimes are not investigated, and the perpetrators prosecuted.
These incidents appear to be homicides. Therefore a thorough police investigation is required, and I am formally requesting you to pursue that. I can make several experts on this matter available to you in the course of your investigation, should you so desire.
These incidents that need investigating took place across Canada, making this a national investigation. Furthermore, in many of Canada’s province’s, the RCMP is the provincial police force. It, therefore, is the best police force in Canada to exercise the leadership necessary to investigate these serious charges.
I look forward to your expeditious confirmation that you have commenced an investigation.
Yours sincerely,
Maurice Vellacott,
Member of Parliament,
Saskatoon-Wanuskwein
Leon Benoit,
Member of Parliament,
Vegreville-Wainwright
Wladyslaw Lizon,
Member of Parliament,
Mississauga East-Cooksville
Patricia Maloney writes a fascinating blog called Run With Life (run-with-life.blogspot.ca), through which she scrupulously compiles facts and statistics relating to Canadian abortions. In early December, 2012, Ms. Maloney broke the fact that at least 491 living babies were illegally killed in Canada since 2000 under the guise of “abortion”. Politicians and the press have scrambled to cover this up and to lie about the true ramifications, proving that Ms. Maloney has hit a very sensitive nerve.
By Barbara Kay
Abortion is legal in Canada. Yeah, we get that. Hear it a lot. A lot. So is driving a car. But driving is a regulated activity, and so far none of the many driving regulations that help to save lives has ever plunged us down that slippery slope to denying people the right to buy a car.
And when I say “save lives” in this analogous way, I am not being coy. I am talking about recognized criminal activity. I am talking about a living human being that is outside the womb. If you cause injuries to a baby that causes it to die when delivered, or you actively kill a child that is alive when outside the womb, even if the umbilical cord is still attached, then according to the Criminal Code of Canada, you are committing homicide.
The MPs from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario made the request on House of Commons letterhead to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson. In the letter, the MPs say abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or later breach Section 223a of the Criminal Code, which says a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
According to the Criminal Code, a child is a human being when it emerges completely from the womb — whether or not the umbilical cord has been severed, it is breathing on its own or has “independent circulation.” The MPs say the killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if they are not thoroughly investigated by police.
MPs from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario have said they want late-term abortions that result in a live birth and then death to the baby investigated by the police as potential cases of homicide. Naturally the usual suspects are having their usual fit of the vapours at the very idea.
Between 2000-2009, the MPS allege, “there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater that resulted in live births.” If that is the case – and the sources I have seen are persuasive in their credibility – then we are talking about an average of 54 such births a year.
That’s a few more than the average year’s tally of killings of women by their intimate partners. I got into a Twitter dispute with one of my colleagues yesterday. I asked him if it wasn’t worth one regulatory constraint on late-term abortions if it prevented 54 deaths of living babies a year. He adamantly rejected it: “apples and oranges” he called the comparison.
There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality.
I reject his comparison. Life outside the womb is life. Unless of course you are one of those creepy new progressive types that call for the right to kill babies with defects up to 30 days outside the womb. I asked my friend: Suppose there were a regulation we could impose that would effectively end spousal homicide of women: Wouldn’t you be eager to see it implemented? He didn’t answer.
But I know what he means by apples and oranges. Apples are women – and their protection from harm is the driver of much anguished public debate. Oranges are live babies that are not really “alive” in the moral sense in his mind if the mother delivering it doesn’t want it.
All that tells me is that this otherwise bright friend is so programmed to believe in the slippery slope of abortion regulation that he can’t bring himself to countenance a single exception to our no-fetters situation. Which is odd, because every other nation in the world insists on certain regulations, and no democratic nation has outlawed abortion in general.
This refusal to stare down the hands-off fetishists is getting downright silly. Worse, it is permitting criminal activity in the name of social harmony. Well, I don’t feel particularly harmonious about those 491 live births and I am betting there are plenty of other Canadians who believe in abortion as a general right, but are also sickened by late-term abortions and would be perfectly happy to see that aspect of the practice regulated.
There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?
National Post
Ron Gray explains why he thinks the Canada-wide "Idle No More" protests by Aboriginals are an indication of a long and serious problem that is being avoided by the federal government. Yet the problem is easily addressed and easily fixed, starting with all sides agreeing that the current state of government paternalism be replaced by treating Aboriginal People as full and equal citizens of Canada. Read the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples.
Mark Hasiuk speaks again with Vivian "follow the money" Krause, the intrepid researcher and freelance journalist who for years has been connecting the financial dots between big American money and selective Canadian charities that – oh, by the way – seem to benefit big American corporations at the expense of Canada. Evidence abounds, but so do big American denials. Hmmm.
It has been said that the greatest way to measure a society is by the way it treats its weakest members.
Using this criterion as a thermometer, how does Canada fair? Are we a country in which the disenfranchised are taken advantage of? Do we have the social structures in place to care for the poor and downtrodden, those who can’t care for themselves or speak up in the face of injustice?
Judging by the increasing level of unrest in recent months, you could safely assume that as a country, we’re not doing very well; the mercury in the thermometer is steadily falling. The Idle No More movement, road and rail blockades, and pipeline protesters fill the front pages of newspapers with charges of one injustice after another.
It is a good thing that we have the ability to reflect on current practices and make adjustments as necessary; this is a virtue of a solid country. I am sure that there are ways to improve the lives of the First Nations, and there is certainly a plethora of ideas on how best to use our natural resources in an environmentally responsible manner that still allows for enough revenue to facilitate the many social programs Canada offers.
Whether or not these current issues should be regarded as injustices is perhaps debatable, but regardless of one’s position on them, the reality is that these are movements made up of people who can speak for themselves and address the way in which they are being treated.
This is quite different from another demographic who are not able to do so. Pre-born children of all ages face incredible injustices in Canada, more so than in any other country in the world. Since the injustice is for the most part invisible and the victims certainly can’t speak against it, it rarely makes the front page of the newspaper.
There is room for improvement in this area. Monday will mark 25 years of no legal protection for children at any stage of development in the womb. This gives us every reason to reflect on the status quo. Undoubtedly there will be some who celebrate this as a huge achievement for women’s rights. It’s unfortunate that many Canadians have accepted the dogma that states that abortion is solely a women’s rights issue. The reality is, it’s a human rights issue and Canada fails to measure up when it comes to its treatment of these weak members of the human family.
Statistics Canada reports that in 2009, there were more than 11,000 abortions after 13 weeks gestation. Interestingly, other western nations, some of which are more secular than ours, recognize in law the rights of pre-born children at 12 weeks gestation. Not only is Canada out of line with other democracies, we are also in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, which states: “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
Just because the quandary posed by blockades, pipelines and reserves is difficult, it is not an excuse to neglect the real concerns expressed. So also, though the issue of legal protection for children in the womb is difficult, it should not be an excuse for inaction.
It’s time for Canada to start setting things right, to coax the mercury back up the proverbial thermometer. Yes, the politics are complicated and difficult, but that should never excuse a First World nation from doing everything it can to protect the truly weakest members of society.
Mike Schouten is the campaign director for weneedaLAW.ca, a national organization that advocates for federal abortion legislation in Canada.
John Carpay, Vancouver Sun, January 21, 2013
William Flanagan argues that Trinity Western University (TWU) should not be allowed to set up its own law school because this Christian university is guilty of “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
As the dean of the faculty of law at Queen’s University, Flanagan should know that a free society tolerates a wide range of opinion on all topics, including sexual morality. No law compels anyone to agree with Flanagan’s opinions about sex and sexuality, nor is he compelled to agree with Christian teaching about sex and sexuality.
A free society allows adherents of all religious and non-religious faiths (including agnostics, atheists, and people who believe in God without adhering to any particular religion) to proclaim what they believe to be the truth. A free society also allows people of like mind to associate together and establish their own institutions, including charities, schools, hospitals, churches, universities, and even law schools. For Flanagan to suggest that all Canadian law schools must comply with one, single government-enforced ideology about sexual behaviour is the opposite of a free society. The imposition of one world view on all institutions is the hallmark of totalitarianism.
Further, Flanagan is wrong in accusing TWU of “discriminating” against gays. Consistent with over 2,000 years of Christian teaching, TWU’s “community covenant” imposes a range of penalties (including expulsion) on heterosexual students who engage in sex outside of marriage. This community covenant applies to all staff and all students, regardless of sexual orientation, prohibiting adultery, pornography, promiscuity, etc. Any student, whether gay or straight, who does not wish to abide by TWU’s code of conduct is free to attend another university. Nobody is required to abide by these rules, unless a person voluntarily submits to them. For Flanagan to characterize these rules as “anti-gay” is misleading.
In TWU v. College of Teachers, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed Flanagan’s concerns by ruling that “there is nothing in the TWU Community Standards, which are limited to prescribing conduct of members while at TWU, that indicates that graduates of TWU will not treat homosexuals fairly and respectfully.” The court also noted that religious public education rights are enshrined in Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Canada has indisputably the most monolithic body of law schools in the western world. They are all of the same model, promoting a politically correct world view which rarely if ever questions the progressive orthodoxies of radical feminism, socialist economics, aboriginal entitlements, and libertine sexual politics. Those who shout the loudest for “tolerance” and “diversity” are in fact the most intolerant of any real diversity in opinion, as can be seen by the Canadian Council of Law Deans opposing the creation of a law school which might be different from all the others.
Whatever Flanagan’s views about sex may be, he is free to persuade other people of their correctness. Apparently not content with this freedom, Flanagan seems to believe that every law school in Canada must comply with and teach his ideology. This hostility to authentic diversity runs counter to the fundamental freedoms of expression and association, both protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada’s fundamental freedom of religion and conscience is not limited to people who are religious as such. Every person holds metaphysical beliefs in respect of questions like: Why do we exist? What is right and wrong? How should we behave? Science can tell you how to end the life of a convicted murderer, but not whether it is right or wrong to do so, or why, or under what circumstances, if any. The Charter protects the rights of atheists, agnostics and theists alike to ponder these questions, arrive at their own conclusions, share those conclusions with their fellow citizens, and act upon their convictions.
A free society protects atheists and agnostics from government coercion as much as it protects theists. To insist that all law schools (or other institutions) must subscribe to a particular set of beliefs about sexual behaviour threatens the freedom of everyone — including Flanagan’s freedom.
Calgary lawyer John Carpay is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca).
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
#253, 7620 Elbow Drive SW
Calgary, Alberta, T2V 1K2
Phone: (403) 619-8014
“Defending the constitutional freedoms of Canadians”
Kari Simpson interviews Bill Whatcott in this 4th and final instalment this series. Bill describes his profession as a nurse and how that led to his awareness of left-wing bias in all things Canadian. Nursing also opened Bill's eyes to the horrors of abortion, the ravages of AIDS, and the dearth of spirituality in today's society. Speaking the truth became a no-brainer for Bill Whatcott – and a terrible offence to those who worship hedonism, censorship, and political correctness.
It seems that Bill Flanagan, president of the Council of Canadian Law Deans, is opposed to the establishment of a law school at a highly respected Christian university.
Flanagan sent out a hysterical letter to his cohorts, attempting to galvanize opposition to Trinity Western University’s decision to once again expand the educational opportunities available to its students, to now include a law school.
TWU is no stranger to deconstructionists attempting to usurp the rights of the civil majority by demonizing constitutionally-protected beliefs, opinions, practices and associations; a few years ago, the Langley university had to battle cultural terrorists from the BC College of Teachers all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, when they wanted students enrolled in TWU’s School of Education to be certified to teach in BC schools.
Of course, TWU won.
Mr. Flanagan and his gaggle of law deans are now squawk-boxing their repulsion about the code of conduct requirements that students agree to. Students wanting to attend TWU agree not to engage in swearing, profanity, drunkenness, porn-viewing, adultery, premarital… or sexual orgies/activities that seem to be sanctioned by secular universities like the University of Toronto; but the proviso that really has their pork stewing in the pit is the agreement students make not to engage in (gasp!) homosexuality.
Oh my! Imagine a school when civility, morality and sexual health are encouraged!
For more on this story
National Post click here:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/18/attempts-to-start-canadas-first-christian-law-school-come-under-fire-because-of-b-c-universitys-ban-on-gay-relationships/
LifeSiteNews story about the sex party/orgy being facilitated by tax-payer funded university click here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/university-of-toronto-sex-party-isnt-an-orgy-its-strictly-consensual-say-or
For a copy of the letter sent out by Bill Flanagan, President of the Canadian Council of Law Deans, click here.
If you wish to express your opinion or outrage to Mr. Bill Flanagan and the Council of Canadian Law Deans for discriminating against Christians, a constitutionally protected group, you can use this contact information:
Please direct your correspondences in care of:
Brigitte Pilon
Executive Director
57 Louis Pasteur
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1N 6N5
Telephone: (613) 824-9233
Facsimile: (613) 824-9233
E-mail: brigitteccld@rogers.com
Ron Gray explains the rare circumstances that allow an appeal to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Among the circumstances are if significant evidence was missed in the trial, and if justice was thwarted by or in the High Court. Both these circumstances exist in this case, and to ignore the proof would be to compound the injustice even further. Does Canada's highest court have the integrity to correct its own errors, or will they have to be forced by Parliamentary intervention to obey the law?
To legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide would enable one citizen to directly and intentionally cause the death of another citizen or be involved with causing that death. Canada must not allow its citizens to be involved with causing the death of other Canadian citizens. We understand that the most tragic cases will dominate the public discussion, but the issues must be considered based on how it will affect society as a whole.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not socially acceptable responses to terminal or incurable illness or chronic conditions. Changing the law may result in some people feeling pressured and thereby consider themselves or their loved ones as ‘better-off-dead’. Some people will feel obliged to justify why they want to continue treatment. For many, including attending physicians, euthanasia and assisted suicide would become the unspoken, but ever present, question resulting in a subtle, negative change to the doctor-patient relationship. Will this result in a “duty to die”?
Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a threat to the equality of persons. The lives of some in our community will be considered — “not worth living”. Among those at greatest risk are the elderly, the lonely, those living with disabilities, those experiencing chronic illness and those with limited access to good medical care. Maintaining the current laws protects all Canadians equally.
Older Canadians are not a problem to be rid of — they’re a generation to be honored and cared for. Elder Abuse has become a significant problem in Canada. We cannot ignore the possibility that dependent elderly people may be coerced into euthanasia or assisted suicide. We cannot put older Canadians at risk by creating new paths to elder abuse.
Canada must not place the lives of citizens at risk. Legislators need to apply the precautionary principle: the higher the risk – the higher the burden of proof on those proposing legislation. The risk of abuse cannot be eliminated.
Legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is a recipe for abuse. So-called ‘safeguards’ are an illusion because they are unable to prevent the potential for coercion and abuse.
All Canadians should have access to quality pain control — no matter where they live. Pain control and palliative medicine should be given a higher priority in medical training so that every Canadian can benefit.
Being involved in one’s health care plan and making informed choices are vitally important to a patient’s sense of well being. Euthanasia and assisted suicide would weaken the autonomy of patients, reducing their choices about their care and symptom management. Euthanasia and assisted suicide could be increasingly adopted as the easier option to the exclusion of genuine patient centered care.
We respectfully ask you in every instance, to firmly oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation.
|
|
|
Marla Cardamone, a beautiful 18 year old American woman (picture left) was pressured by a social worker into aborting her child. The social worker lead Marla to believe her baby was permanently damaged by anti-depressant drugs she was taking and insisted she needed a “therapeutic abortion.” Marla was killed by her “therapeutic abortion.” The (picture centre) was taken a few hours after the “safe & legal” abortion went wrong. Marla is dead and is lying on a stretcher at the coroner’s office. Marla’s son (picture right) died in Marla’s womb. Contrary to the social worker’s alleged diagnosis, the coroner found the baby was perfectly normal at the time of his death. Marla’s grandmother named him “Christopher” and requested that he be buried with his mother. The hospital threw him out claiming he was “medical waste.”
Sordid stories like Marla’s happen in Canada too, but our strict privacy laws, secretive bureaucracy and overwhelmingly pro-abortion media insure most Canadian abortion horror stories never see the light of day. None the less, God who is the author and giver of life has a way of exposing the abortion industry’s dirty little secrets. Thanks to Regina Planned Parenthood’s malicious attempt to sue me and destroy my nursing career we learned a little bit about the abortion industry in Saskatchewan.
An RN appeared at my misconduct trial in 2003 and testified under oath, that she helped Regina Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director, Dr. George Carson kill babies at the Regina General Hospital. She testified to assisting with abortions up to 25 weeks gestation. She testified about witnessing Dr. Carson grabbing one aborted baby by the head and violently shaking the child. She testified Dr. Carson shook the child so hard she was “afraid the child’s head would separate from the body.” She testified that some of the aborted babies defied the doctor’s attempt to kill them during the abortion procedure and they came out alive. One baby the RN described on the stand cried and started sucking its thumb, before dying. Another baby cried and bled to death before her eyes. The baby bled to death because the RN was ordered not to clamp the baby’s umbilical cord shut, to insure the baby would die.
The RN also testified under oath that a 14 year old girl, who was the girlfriend of her teenage son, ingested Morning After Pills in her basement, given to her by Regina Planned Parenthood. The girl collapsed on the floor of her basement in pain, and started bleeding. She was rushed to the Regina General Hospital. No one knew what happened to the girl until she told them about Planned Parenthood giving her the Morning After Pills without her parent’s knowledge or consent. For those who wish to investigate further the case is known as “Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses v. Whatcott.” In the end I prevailed on free speech grounds, but I still believe that some of the revelations that came to light during the discipline tribunal phase should be investigated.
The abortion industry claims to care about women, but whenever a light is shined on their practices one finds what they really care about is their image and money. In provinces across Canada we are being prevented by so-called privacy laws from accessing statistics on abortion and its complications. The abortion industry wants to spread the lie that abortion in Canada is “safe and legal,” but inconvenient truth has a way of springing up and exposing the lie for what it is. The reality is abortion always harms women, sometimes kills them, and almost always murders the baby. Abortion should be illegal and those who are complicit in the grisly practice should be brought to justice.
If you have evidence of an abortion horror story that you want brought to light contact:
Bill Whatcott 306-861-6140, E-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com, website: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca
Contact Premier Brad Wall and demand that he ends Saskatchewan’s tax funding for elective abortion and Planned Parenthood. Demand Premier Wall to order his Attorney General to investigate evidence of babies being born alive after failed abortions and then being murdered in the Regina General Hospital after they refused to die.
Contact Premier Brad Wall: 233 Central Ave N, Swift Current, SK, S9H 0L3, Ph: 306-778-2429, Fax: 306-778-3614,
Email: bwall@mla.legassembly.sk.ca
Sincerely, Bill Whatcott
Ph: 306-861-6140, E-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com, website: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca
“And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another.” 1 John 3:23
Click Here to download a printable PDF of this flyer.